I remember reading about mainframes going out the door, and after a certain point, and after my father retired, I started saying "his last job was to turn off the mainframes." He in turn, on hearing this story, would say, "that's just about right."
But several years later, I discovered that mainframes and networked PCs co-existed in the same offices I worked in as a contractor. I was surprised to find these ancient beasts in place after place,
But, they still do have their benefits.
How much longer will they be useful?
I worked for a (now defunct) computer retail store between 1990 and 1995. Sometime during that period, they switched time recording on my paycheck from hours and minutes to digital time, that is, "hh.m". I argued, and my boss supported me on this that the difference to my paycheck would pay for lunch.
They didn't listen. They really didn't care, in the end.
BTW, why did the computer store go bankrupt? Primarily from dishonest business practices.
I have used Debian Linux since version 0.93 (about 1995), and I teach Linux at a community college. I have a seven-node home computer network with a SUSE firewall, a Debian workstation, a dual-boot (Linux/Windows) machine for the kids, a Windows machine for my wife, and two laptops (one for me, one for my wife, mine is dual-boot). I built all the machines, except the laptops, from parts.
When I build a machine for Linux, I will typically download and install the latest stable build of the Linux distribution which is going to land on the machine. From there, what I do varies. Anything that could affect security or efficient operation of the machine (starting with the OS here -- I always prefer to build my own kernel locally, you never *really* know what is included in a pre-built kernel) I build from source packages. Anything trivial included in default packages from Linux distribution (for example, games) I download as a package -- but with that comment, keep in mind that no package is ever *truly* trivial: if you are building a server that must be secure, you need to know what is in the package you are loading.
But I believe (and from a cursory view at the headlines to the responses here, I think most probably agree), that you have to draw the line somewhere. If you are running a top-secret government laboratory, you ought to compile from source, and not even start from a Linux distribution. If you are setting up a machine for your kids to play games and won't connect it to the internet, would it be worth it to compile from source?
Somewhere in between, there is a line you must draw.
The two cases I presented above are the two absolute extremes. Discounting the trivial game box, I think one should always compile their own kernel for that specific machine (and possibly for the kids' game box, possibly not); if you are building a server, or a machine which needs to have high performance or will see extreme usage, then there are obviously certain things which need to be compiled from source.
But do you need to build (trying to think of a fairly trivial example) more/less/most from source in most cases? Why?
Check the security sources -- are there any security holes reported for that particular package? Do you suspect any may be possible (it is possible to build a trivial game that includes a security hole, but how important is it to you to check the game's source for possible security holes?).
I will not say that it is wrong to compile *everything* from source, that is certainly admirable. But compile a to-do list with all the compiles and all the other stuff you have to do during the day/week/month, and then order all the tasks according to importance.
Now, think about the question about compiling a trivial package from source once again: how important is that to you?
Some instances of compiling from source are going to end up high on your list no matter how you order it, others near the bottom.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading about mainframes going out the door, and after a certain point, and after my father retired, I started saying "his last job was to turn off the mainframes." He in turn, on hearing this story, would say, "that's just about right." But several years later, I discovered that mainframes and networked PCs co-existed in the same offices I worked in as a contractor. I was surprised to find these ancient beasts in place after place, But, they still do have their benefits. How much longer will they be useful?
I worked for a (now defunct) computer retail store between 1990 and 1995. Sometime during that period, they switched time recording on my paycheck from hours and minutes to digital time, that is, "hh.m". I argued, and my boss supported me on this that the difference to my paycheck would pay for lunch.
They didn't listen. They really didn't care, in the end.
BTW, why did the computer store go bankrupt? Primarily from dishonest business practices.
When I build a machine for Linux, I will typically download and install the latest stable build of the Linux distribution which is going to land on the machine. From there, what I do varies. Anything that could affect security or efficient operation of the machine (starting with the OS here -- I always prefer to build my own kernel locally, you never *really* know what is included in a pre-built kernel) I build from source packages. Anything trivial included in default packages from Linux distribution (for example, games) I download as a package -- but with that comment, keep in mind that no package is ever *truly* trivial: if you are building a server that must be secure, you need to know what is in the package you are loading.
But I believe (and from a cursory view at the headlines to the responses here, I think most probably agree), that you have to draw the line somewhere. If you are running a top-secret government laboratory, you ought to compile from source, and not even start from a Linux distribution. If you are setting up a machine for your kids to play games and won't connect it to the internet, would it be worth it to compile from source?
Somewhere in between, there is a line you must draw.
The two cases I presented above are the two absolute extremes. Discounting the trivial game box, I think one should always compile their own kernel for that specific machine (and possibly for the kids' game box, possibly not); if you are building a server, or a machine which needs to have high performance or will see extreme usage, then there are obviously certain things which need to be compiled from source.
But do you need to build (trying to think of a fairly trivial example) more/less/most from source in most cases? Why?
Check the security sources -- are there any security holes reported for that particular package? Do you suspect any may be possible (it is possible to build a trivial game that includes a security hole, but how important is it to you to check the game's source for possible security holes?).
I will not say that it is wrong to compile *everything* from source, that is certainly admirable. But compile a to-do list with all the compiles and all the other stuff you have to do during the day/week/month, and then order all the tasks according to importance.
Now, think about the question about compiling a trivial package from source once again: how important is that to you?
Some instances of compiling from source are going to end up high on your list no matter how you order it, others near the bottom.
Fairfax